Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Classic 5.18.6 release

2024-09-30 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
+1 Thank you -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 12:32 AM Jamie G. wrote: > +1 > > Cheers, > Jamie > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 7:52 PM Christopher Shannon > wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) &

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ Classic 6.1.3 release

2024-08-05 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
I agree, both approaches are used and I haven't seen any issues related to it. If we want to change it, that's fine, we can create an issue to track the work but I don't think it is a blocker for this release. +1 JL -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlou

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 5.18.5 release

2024-07-23 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Tested and works perfectly Thanks +1 Le mar. 23 juil. 2024, 05:01, Liao, Ken a écrit : > +1 (non-binding) > > All of our internal tests passed for ActiveMQ 5.18.5. Looking forward to > seeing it in public! > > Thanks, > Ken Liao > > On 2024-07-22, 6:01 PM, "Matt Pavlovich" mattr...@gmail.com>

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ "Classic" 5.18.4 release

2024-04-11 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
+1 -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 9:21 AM Francois Papon wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks! > > regards, > > François > > On 08/04/2024 11:25, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.1 release

2023-12-01 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
+1 Thanks JB -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:10 AM fpapon wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks! > > regards, > > On 30/11/2023 14:17, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi guys, > > &

JMS 2 and JMS 3.1 status

2023-11-16 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Hi all, Any information or plans for the JMS 2.0 / JMS 3.1 implementation in ActiveMQ Classic? I'm more interested in the Shared Durable Topic feature. With some guidance or help, I can probably help on this. Thanks -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 release (take #2)

2023-11-15 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Very great job. Looks good to me. +1 I'll see if we can get it included in TomEE asap to see where we are in terms of TCK. Le jeu. 16 nov. 2023, 02:16, Eraskin, Aleksei a écrit : > Hi Team, > > +1 (non-binding) > > All of our internal tests passed for ActiveMQ 6.0.0. Looking forward to > seein

Re: [PROPOSAL] Switch to GitHub issues/actions after ActiveMQ 6.0.0

2023-10-16 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Sounds easier to follow and avoids navigating all the time between JIRA and Github -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 8:53 AM Francois Papon wrote: > +1 > > We did that move on Shiro and it's easier because we

Re: [DISCUSS] ActiveMQ 6.0.0 revisited

2023-09-14 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Same, when I have to mention both in the same discussion, I tend to add "classic" for ActiveMQ to make sure there is no confusion with Artemis. But that's basically it. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:43 A

Re: [DISCUSS] Naming convention for official Docker images

2023-07-10 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
che/activemq/classic with apache/activemq/artemis or the way around. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 4:46 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Justin, > > It has been discussed but not the name specifically. > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.2 release

2023-06-29 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
+1 Thanks JB! -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 8:13 AM fpapon wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks JB! > > regards, > > On 28/06/2023 07:44, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi, > > &g

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.17.5 release

2023-06-29 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
+1 Thanks JB! -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 8:13 AM fpapon wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks JB! > > regards, > > On 28/06/2023 15:40, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi guys, >

Re: Remove Jackson from ActiveMQ classic

2023-05-19 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
t least work for people who > want to switch out the implementation. > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 5:36 AM Jean-Louis Monteiro < > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > > The issue is that CVEs are frequent on Jackson and we can't always > release > > ActiveMQ

Re: Remove Jackson from ActiveMQ classic

2023-05-17 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
user experience. If it's ready, let's rebase the PR and merge it so at least we can pick up another provider. Thanks for all the follow up -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 5:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: &g

Re: Remove Jackson from ActiveMQ classic

2023-05-16 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
ew/BrokerDestinationViewTest.java > > ./activemq-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/broker/jmx/DestinationsViewFilter.java > > ./activemq-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/broker/jmx/PersistenceAdapterView.java > > Thanks, > Matt Pavlovich > > > On May 16,

Re: Remove Jackson from ActiveMQ classic

2023-05-16 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Yes I remember the discussion. To be honest, as I was mentioning, even JSON-B/P is probably overkill for what we need. Happy to craft up a PR so we can it discuss there and see if that is feasible for 5.19.x -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On

Remove Jackson from ActiveMQ classic

2023-05-16 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
ite down a utility class to parse the small attribute we have to. thoughts? I'm happy to do a PR to remove it if that's the consensus. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.1 release

2023-04-11 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
+1 Thanks JB Le mar. 11 avr. 2023, 21:01, Timothy Bish a écrit : > On 4/11/23 05:26, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I submit Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.1 release to your vote. This release > > fixes activemq-client-jakarta where the META-INF/services file was > > missing in the artifact.

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.18.0 release

2023-03-21 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Looks good to me +1 -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 8:08 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > - Internal test suite completed successfully > - Downloaded tar.gz, confirmed scenarios using

Re: [HEADSUP] Moving forward on 5.18.0 release

2023-03-05 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
That's ok Thanks JB Le dim. 5 mars 2023, 06:45, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > Hi, > > Now 5.17.4 has been released, I propose to move forward on 5.18.0 release. > > The target is to submit this release to vote at the end of next week. > > Thanks, > Regards > JB >

Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 5.16.6 release

2023-02-11 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
+1 Looks good. Thanks JB Le ven. 10 févr. 2023, 16:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > Hi guys, > > We receive several requests to provide a new (final) ActiveMQ 5.16.6 > release, including few security fixes/improvements. > > So, I submit ActiveMQ 5.16.6 release to your vote. This one should

Re: [PROPOSAL] Completely remove Camel reference in the ActiveMQ broker

2022-08-04 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Yes of course. That sounds a good opportunity to clean remaining links to Camel Le jeu. 4 août 2022, 10:21, Francois Papon a écrit : > Hi JB, > > Agree, make sense. > > regards, > > François > > On 04/08/2022 09:01, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We already removed the activemq-came

Re: [PROPOSAL] ActiveMQ 5.17.0 end of this week

2022-02-21 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Hey Jean-Baptiste, Sounds good to me. Thanks -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 6:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > New update: I just pushed the fix on activemq-web-console on > https://github.com/apache/activem

Re: Jakarta compatible version of ActiveMQ classic

2022-02-16 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
gt; > Justin > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:15 AM Jean-Louis Monteiro < > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to know if there is an available version of ActiveMQ Classic for > > Jakarta? > > I think we can have

Re: Jakarta compatible version of ActiveMQ classic

2022-02-16 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
Hello Jean-Baptiste, Just to be clear, you are changing the sources to move to jakarta namespace right? Is there a problem if I use a shade approach with a classifier so it does not impact? I'd like to try it in TomEE and see how it works -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismon

Jakarta compatible version of ActiveMQ classic

2022-02-16 Thread Jean-Louis Monteiro
to use it. WDYT? -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com